I’m tired of reading comments from bloggers who believe if voters don’t agree with them, it means they are low information, ignorant people.

If you want people to agree with you, if you are tired of the partisan bickering and really want government to work for all - you have to respect people.

You cannot support democracy and badmouth voters. You cannot have democracy without them.

If you can only explain your candidate’s losses by claiming voters are not smart enough to understand the issues, where the candidates stand, or that they can be fooled, bought off, they are lazy or corrupted - then you suck as a political observer. Candidates lose because they didn’t convince enough citizens to support them on an election day.

If you don’t believe in voters and election day, then you should move to a place where other people like you don’t believe in voters and election day - there are plenty of hell on Earths that will welcome your opinion with open arms and agree with you.

We’re getting more and more of this sort of crud in comments as the election nears (on both sides, actually) and it’s really been bothering me. VMan captured my feelings exactly.

I would only add that too often this loaded “low information voters” phrase is used as racial code - against poor blacks or, to a lesser extent, poor whites. Enough, already.

I don’t know that “low-information voters” is “racial” code….there are plenty on folks, like many younger voter of all kinds of backgrounds, that just don’t know, and don’t care to know. And, I think it’s been shown that only a small portion of the “informed” scratch much below the surface.

Reminds me of the university study that showed that those who exclusively watch Fox News were less informed that some one who watched NO news. That would seem to be the definition of “low information voter”.

Because A guy a high information voter is anyone who completely agrees with me and the only person that is, is well me….

The challenge is there are folks on both sides who just can’t or don’t want to understand why someone would vote for the other guy. Some voting is driven by personal economic interests and I can see how if you work for the state you would think Quinn is better for your economic interests, in fact he likely is better for your personal economic interests.

I suspect many of you who support Quinn can understand why I consider his who thing with legislative pay as a showstopper. A violation of separation of powers that is enough for me not to vote for him.

The low information thing as it were kicks in for two reasons.

For one people here are into politics (or at least for some newer folks hating Rauner) and we always have a hard time understanding why others are not interested in what we are interested, be it politics or curling (seriously people it is a lot of fun)…

Good campaigns understand how precious voters are, and how important voters exercising their right should be to the process.

The intangible to understanding your “precinct” is understanding the 600 or so voters aren’t going to agree with you or your candidate, 100%.

To win, you need to convince those voters that whomever you are advocating for has their best interests in mind. Some cases, it’s easy, other cases, the issues dictate the voter to vote against your candidate.

I have to believe all people, for the most part, are good people. Tom Swiss and that campaign really frames why voters fear charlatans in the process. Those voters rejecting Swiss are the heroes, not those trying to base their politics on how they think they see voters, and they see them in a disrespecting way.

While groups, any group if you may, advocate positions, or beliefs, or even parties, it’s still people, person after person, voting as best they can, given the choices they have.

- VanillaMan -, well done to bring this back to maybe even a “reset”. We can discuss the issues, or even strategies or talking points, but the voters, the people, they will have the final judgement, as they always do on Election Day, and how lucky are we that we live in a country where that matters.

Thanks for doing this Rich. I’ve gone out of my way to curtail my commenting in the past few months while others have labeled commentators “dopes” or use multiple comments on issues to shout down other voices. Here is for a return to this site of free and open debate among commentators of all political beliefs and parties instead of the current shouting and loud sloganeering that is simply quite boring and tiresome.

I used the now-banned phrase and I stick by it. Those who claim it is racist are simply proving the point. Histrionics and emotionally-charged claims that are designed to incite rather than inform are the norm, from both sides, to stir passion among voters.

Low information refers more specifically to the fact that the consumption of news about public policy is on the decline. Whatever the underlying reasons, voters are spending less time consuming information about issues. Already engaged voters are populating sites like this to help inform them. But an increasing number of voters are spending less time reading newspapers or watching tv news. It’s a fact.

Vanilla Man makes a rousing defense of democracy but it is misdirected. Lamenting the fact that voters, for a variety of reasons, are less engaged in policy issues, and, thus, more susceptible to appeals based on emotion rather than fact, does not mean one wishes to abandon democracy. Nor does it particularly denigrate the voter. Many tune out because of the diminished caliber of political discourse from candidates and campaigns. Many are simply otherwise occupied in an age of abundant sources of entertainment. And in a country where there remains relative prosperity and peace and a change in the regime doesn’t mean your village will be wiped off the map, we are lucky that we can spend more time on other pursuits.

As Churchill said, “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

So the use of one phrase makes me a racist enemy of democracy. Who’s going overboard now?

Interesting comments from Vanilla. I see some hypocracy here. If calling a person a Low Info Voter is racist, then call all conservatives white bigot is not? But that’s not dig whistle, that is using a tornado siren.

High info, low info, it’s a judgement, and it’s usually not smart to try to figure out what’s going on in someone else’s head. As a smart old man told me years ago, you’re better off looking at people’s actions, not what you think might be motivating them. And I’ll add that, collectively, it seems to me that the voters in this country tend to know where they want government to go, at least in broad terms, before most politicians know where that is and how to get there. As someone, Russell Long, I believe, once said, “A statesman is a politician who figures out where the people are going and runs around and gets in front of them.”

Fan, who called you a white bigot? It isn’t just white bigots who use the term referencing a large AA bloc of voters that are solid ds. Liberals use the term to describe single issue rural conservatives clinging to their guns, religion and anti-abortion zealotry. Rich doesn’t want it used in the discourse here because we are smart enough to argue merits, and not simply call anyone voting for the other candidate is stupid or “low-information”.

I believe the well informed voter is increasingly facing more noise, more distractions and receiving less pertinent information as a result. This is not always by choice. Sometimes, the distracting noise becomes so offensive they’ll tune out. Voter apathy is the result. You can’t rely on once credible news sources to always get the truth, though they try, but commentary by pundits distort the facts. Besides the Fax, there aren’t many places you can trust, as we see editorial boards pushing their own agendas. 24/7 media hasn’t improved voter education.

Look, it’s a fact that people don’t pay very close attention to state politics. There are plenty of studies about this. It’s a fact.

What bothers me is that some want to denigrate vast swaths of people who disagree with them as “low information voters,” as if all they had to do was become high info voters and suddenly they would see the light and change their minds.

It’s a ridiculous, insulting and amazingly egotistical notion.

And if that’s how you truly feel, then you need to comment somewhere else. It’s a free country, so you’re free to leave.

There is no such thing as a low information voter. Only political wonks who don’t know the real reason these people voted, don’t respect them enough to ask, don’t respect them enough to listen and don’t really believe in democracy.

Being an expert in a narrow specific field doesn’t make you an expert in everything involved in life. Millions of voters have millions of reasons for voting the way they do. If you write some of them off as undeserving reasons to vote - you are the idiot and low information moron, not them.

Very well stated, Vanilla Man. I am sick of when the right wing does it as much as when the “progressives” on the North Side of Chicago do it. It needs to stop. It is so insulting to one’s fellow citizens and displays an ignorance of politics.

What does is take to become a “high information voter?” I ask because I follow Illinois politics very closely: I read newspapers, blogs (including this one, obviously), and government websites. I pride myself on staying informed.

Yet, I voted for Blagojevich. Twice.

Had I known he was such a clueless numbskull, I never would have voted for him. But I didn’t know. So what am I doing wrong?

“Convince them of what? To believe what you believe? I think you are demonstrating exactly what VMan is talking about. A lack of understanding that *gasp* people might think differently than you do.”

From Vanilla’s post:

“Candidates lose because they didn’t convince enough citizens to support them on an election day.”

And for the record, I do not worship at the alter of democracy for democracy’s sake. Recent elections in Gaza brought Hamas to power and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Democracy requires an informed and engaged electorate to work.

Maybe I’m not PC enough, but I’ve never seen “low information voter” as used on this site as racist. It seems more used for people who will make their decisions based on who has the better looking or sounding or slicker TV, radio or other media ads or “coverage.” (You can hardly call it news by earlier standards of reporting.) The level of discourse here compared to what you see on other sites, while somewhat snippy at times in a usually good natured fashion,is miles above what you will find elsewhere. Too many other sites never get beyond the endless sniping of “It’s all Obama’s fault - It’s all Bush’s fault - You’re an idiot - No, you’re an idiot.” That can really cause someone to despair over the future of our democracy, especially when it appears it only reflects what is going on in Congress. But, having said that, Rich is the gatekeeper, owner and king of the world of his own site, so we play by his rules, which should contribute to the “civilized and smart” standards he is seeking here.

What does is take to become a “high information voter?” I ask because I follow Illinois politics very closely: I read newspapers, blogs (including this one, obviously), and government websites. I pride myself on staying informed.

Yet, I voted for Blagojevich. Twice.

Had I known he was such a clueless numbskull, I never would have voted for him. But I didn’t know. So what am I doing wrong?====

Two steps:
Keep coming here.
Split the difference between Vman and Willie. Tie goes to the runner. VMan is the runner!

I want to also clarify a comment I made, from the same post - VanillaMan -’s comment originated;

Any campaign that defines it’s tactics as pandering to what THEY feel are voters not worthy of respect, but deserves pandering, simply because the campaign itself lacks respect for voters is not a campaign I can support.

I try to hold the campaigns themselves accountable.

Voters do their best to determine whom they want to elect. No one has cornered the market on smarts.

Just because someone doesn’t vote as you, or I, or this or that group, doesn’t make anyone less, or you smarter.

My point was campaigns counting on that is disrespectful, and I can’t support that campaign or candidate, and an example would be Swiss.

When I look around me, I see people who are doing the very best they can — people who are dealing with tough jobs, with family troubles, with health problems, with money worries. People feel that their plates are already so full that just one more speck will send them right over the edge.

And I’m supposed to look down on these people because they don’t understand the nuances of public pension policy?

We do a crap job of making our case to the voters, and then we blame them for not caring? That’s nonsense. It’s our job to let them know why what we’re doing is important. And it doesn’t help that so much of political reporting is all about the inside baseball stuff.

I learned an important lesson many years ago, when I was on the board of a West Side daycare center. Everybody complained and complained about how the parents weren’t involved, that they didn’t care, that the same few people always did all the work.

So we decided to hand over the reins to a local social service organization, and held a parent meeting to let them know what was going on.

Every single parent showed up. And I realized — the reason they hadn’t been coming to meetings was that they thought we were doing just fine. Our center meant that they had one one less thing to worry about. They weren’t apathetic — they were just overwhelmed.

If we don’t respect our voters, why the heck should we expect them to listen to us?

“you might be wrong to think that the sun revolves around the earth, but in the US nothing stops you from living your life like it does.”

In a democracy the citizenship (in theory) holds all the political power. Do you think its good for a civilization if a large number of those holding the power a so woefully misinformed about elementry scientific facts?

Democracy is messy. Sometimes people win that we don’t want to win. You have still completely failed to grasp what VMan has said. You say democracy doesn’t work when the people you think should win don’t win. Nobody said democracy is perfect. But as far as I’m concerned so long as I can freely go to the polls and cast my vote it’s working.

VMan but if there are no low infromation voters… then that just means the canidate has either failed to get their messager across, or to understand what is important to those voters…. that, thats just crazy talk…. low information voter it is… thank you demagoguery for allowing me to dehumanize people instead of thinking about what they say….!

Roughly 30% of eligible voters are not registered to vote and in any given election maybe 60% of registered voters will vote. What name should we give these people that choose not to vote, neighbor, friend, relative?

And for the record, I do not worship at the alter of democracy for democracy’s sake. Recent elections in Gaza brought Hamas to power and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Democracy requires an informed and engaged electorate to work.

Because Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood won these elections, you believe the voters were ill informed or disengaged? In both cases, voters elected into power the political party that they felt best reflected their hopes. Those hopes weren’t wrong.

Then lets consider the voters who are “lemmings” - in what way is it wrong to support the same candidates your neighbors and friends are supporting? What would the benefit be to you to be the contrarian who votes against the candidates it seems everyone else supports? What is so bad about going with the crowd? In what way is that an “uninformed” vote?

Really - we need to get it out of our heads that there are good and bad reasons voters vote. We all do the best we can with what we have.

Do you really make an informed vote on each judge, each ballot contest? Do you really have the “right” opinion to vote the way you do on every race on every ballot?

No. No you don’t.

So stop insulting people who vote the way they do. Stop saying that their vote was wrong. It wasn’t for them on that day, on that election. For whatever reason.

When we are as open minded and accepting of one another’s opinions regarding our elections, perhaps we can begin rebuilding Illinois. I’m tired of the partisanship. I’m tired of the corruption. I’m tired of being just plain tired.

There are perfectly reasonable reasons for supporting Brady over Quinn.

However, my comments went the idea that deliberately avoiding detail or letting voters think what they want to think is somehow pandering. I think that was the substance of your post above. If I’m wrong and you are OK with that as strategy, then please let me know.

I just don’t view a deliberate lack of detail that way at all. If your best path to victory is keeping voters in the dark about reality, I view that as a strategic decision and not as pandering.

Clarification - voters weren’t voting for the destruction of their lives. They voted for a brighter future for them. While the parties failed to achieve that - those hopes they represented to voters, were not wrong.

The way I see it there are so-called “low information voters” on both sides. So to me, if you demean someone as such you may indeed be putting down someone on your own side one an issue or issues you consider important.

Yes it is true that too many people dial into an election the day before but at least you have to give them credit for dialing in at all.

“Low information” voter - to me it is a catchy new phrase. The phrase seems misapplied to infer race or social standing.

In my first Poli-Sci class in college, the instructor asked who was registered to vote, and then who had ever voted (most of the class, over 18, was not registered and the few who were registered had not voted)…and then the professor continued to ask more probing questions (who worked on a campaign - well, that was practically NO ONE). Could the more appropriate description be “usually disinterested and barely a participant voter….(UDABAPV)”

And when we, the UDABAPV’s, do vote, we vote for the candidate we find we would rather have a beer with. Who knew? Maybe the best campaign ads should have a Clydsdale horse or two in the ad?

And as to VM’s other point…of mutual respect:(1) Kindly treat others on this blog as you would expect to be treated.
(2) It does not hurt to occasionally type in “Mr.” or “Ms.” and address others on the blog and public officials in an appropriate manner.
(3) Remember to thank Mr. Miller for the outstanding blog from time-to-time.

Fortunately, there are so many regulars who are well-mannered on this blog, it is always a pleasure to read.

Playing the race card will not deter me from respectfully making my points. I do believe that there are many voters, way to many, that are “low information” voters. That is not code for anything other then exactly what it says. They are good folks who go about their day working, raising families, and doing wonderful things, but are not educated on the issues of the day or don’t give them any more thought then the latest sound bite. We don’t have a democracy we have a republic. People don’t have to vote, and they can vote by throwing darts if they wish but then you get what I always say is the government that you deserve. I believe state government is a reflection of the society at large in Illinois. I respect everyone’s right to be as informed or non informed as they wish, however, there is such a thing as the low information voter and trying to make it a racial issue to silence others is wrong…very disrespectful to those that feel differently then you do.

Anything that involves human beings is messy. We are after all the close cousins of chimpanzee’s :)

“Sometimes people win that we don’t want to win. You have still completely failed to grasp what VMan has said. You say democracy doesn’t work when the people you think should win don’t win.”

Actually I never said that. I was just pointing out that voters are not perfect and can make bad choices.

” Nobody said democracy is perfect. But as far as I’m concerned so long as I can freely go to the polls and cast my vote it’s working.”

There are many learned political observers that think democracy maybe incapable of making tough long term decisions and something similar to a Chinese model may become the model many emerging nations gravitate towards. Only time will tell, but there is nothing wrong with skepticism.

“So basically you want to institute an intelligence test to be able to vote. Is that what you want? ”

Not to mention that one of the points of parties is to reduce the cost of information through heuristics to the point that you don’t need to be “high” or “low” information at all. You can’t just act when primed.

I understand that you voted for him. I understand that you had your reasons.

However, this goes to your comments that seemed to suggest to me that you think that deliberately allowing voters to have a lack of information is somehow an insult to the voters.

It is hard to view Brady and the budget in any other way, and if so, the lack of respect did not sway your vote.

In contrast, I wouldn’t even view the lack of detail as anything more than strategy. People here get mad because voters will not provide details, but I don’t think most voters get that upset about it. If the campaign is up, why should they provide details? What is to be gained?

Elections are about winning, and if the best way to win is by causing voters to embrace the impossible, that’s fine by me.

Our friend Gene Callahan read seven newspapers a day. I only read four. Growing up my family subscribed to the local paper; I was carrier. Fast forward, newspapers are in decline. Young people get their news on a cell phone, if at all. A great many get their news from cable, with all that that might confer. So, are there “low information voters?” I think so. But, I don’t think that it has anything to do with race or class so much as it does with modern society, how we educate people, what we expect of people, etc. Ask the man on the street questions about American history and politics and see where it takes you. From my observations I will guess the answer to be not very far. Commenters on this Blog are of course a different matter because they pay attention.

“Because Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood won these elections, you believe the voters were ill informed or disengaged? In both cases, voters elected into power the political party that they felt best reflected their hopes. Those hopes weren’t wrong.”

Their hopes for the destruction of Isreal, holocaust denial, and anti-semetic conspiracy theories?

Because all those are in the Hamas agenda. We have nothing more to argue about and I will continue to criticize voters who I think make poor decisions.

VanillaMan made an excellent comment, and Rich stepped in to remind us to be better participants in our democracy. Since I greatly value my privilege to comment here, I will be more careful in my criticisms.

Some comments deserve harsh criticism, and that applies potentially to all of us. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

VanillaMan is absolutely right, and this is a lesson we should all heed, that if we want to convince people to believe in our views, we should do so with respect.

=== For decades, we voted for candidates who entered into contracts for pensions but refused to fund them.===

not sure where to begin; IL pensions and the defined benefits are part of a statute or law created a long long time ago when it was decided to give Governement employees a defined benefit/pension system. The union negotiates with the Governor over certain benefits, such as the ratio of employee and employer contributions to the defined plan.

The elected canidates in the general Assembly who redirected the employer contribtuions for decades did not participate in the union contract negotiations, but whetehr those negotiations occured or not the pension given to State employees is required by the State Constitution and State law.

=== I don’t think people voting based on a lack of a full understanding is anything new. ===

voters understand fully what they are voting for, some observers who believe a vote should have gone a different way just fail to understand that point.

== It is not a generational thing. I suspect it has to do more with us choosing to believe things that are not true. It goes to the way humans are wired and not to any particular age group. ===

If you make comments and then refuse to defend them, that label could be applied to you. You made the comment, I questioned you about it, and you didn’t like the conclusion so you responded with some anger.

To me, a low information voter is someone who votes but does not pay attention to news or study up on issues. This person watches Laverne & Shirley reruns or Jerry Springer, and votes for the person whose commercials are the most titillating. Race has nothing to do with it.

i’m not sure that i totally agree with vanilla. first of all (most) voters are stupid. they don’t follow politics like americans did at our founding. the few of us who do live, breathe and bleed politics — which could have defined a majority of colonists at that time — are now considered weird. but we should never forget that politics is a leisure sport, and not everyone who can vote has the free time necessary to maintaining a healthy, vibrant democracy.

dealing with the reality of a far more ill-informed electorate is another matter. one of the distinctions that is commonly-made within campaigns is low-information RACES. the higher up on the ballot, the more likely that there will be plenty of media coverage of the race. it’s hard to manipulate the electorate at the top of the ballot (although a CNN poll once found that 27% doubted that the president was born in this country — insert stupid joke here), confirmation bias makes this more possible than we’d like.

but lots of races on the ballot that we care about *are* low information races, where one or more candidates don’t have the resources to get their message through to those who vote. we need not quibble about what this means to agree with it.

“base” races are campaigns that focus on enforcing confirmation bias and ignoring (perhaps suppressing) those who don’t think like they do. are voters in these base elections stupid? i’d argue that yes, they are. are they being manipulated? i’d suggest that reinforcing the way people already think is more lazy than manipulative. but it is certainly a safer way to spend valuable resources.

we have this kind of “civics course”-based assumption on how elections should work. field research suggests that a good portion of the electorate likes to think that they are independent voters, that they study the issues (apparently, the night before they vote), and then vote rationally. this is almost certainly hogwash. i once asked (through the campaign i was helping) about 1,000 voters in northwest cook county what factor most influenced their voting. ben nuckles wanted me to include “gut instinct” in the list of possible influences (before the open-ended, voter-suggested answer). we were both surprised at the results. but it conformed with the research. it would be better *if* voters did examine the facts before choosing — but i doubt we would agree what *are* the facts (pick an issue, any issue)!

thus, another problem:

The human mind is so wedded to stereotypes and so distracted by vivid descriptions that it will seize upon them, even when they defy logic, rather than upon truly relevant facts. (same link as above)

which basically completes the circle. this is one of the reasons why the obama campaign was so successful at using its volunteers personal stories in 2008. campaign efforts like these rely more upon the narrative than facts or information. whose narrative is closer to my own is a lot easier for voters to grasp than whose facts do i believe?

i’d argue that democracy, in its purest form, is difficult to maintain and i personally doubt many people are willing to set aside their own personal assumptions (let alone spend the time) to obtain the kind of information that democracy requires. bad mouthing voters? we are *all* armchair political strategists here, aren’t we???

A low information voter is someone who does not pay much attention to the news. Markus Prior studied this idea in his book Post Broadcast Democracy. In the book, he shows how Americans in the 1950s, 60s and 70s were considerably more informed due to the popularity of television and the lack of channels to choose from. Essentially Flipper would go off and the nightly news would come on. The tv typically remained on and people watched the news and knew what was going on locally, nationally, and throughout the world. This all started to change with the advent of cable and satellite and the increase in the number of channels offered (and the content offered). Viewers today can go days or weeks without seeing a news-cast (these would be low information voters). Likewise people can choose the news outlets they watch (CNN, Fox, etc.) leading to an increased (and highly polarized) knowledge among a certain set of viewers.

==I was just pointing out that voters are not perfect and can make bad choices.==

Bad choices according to who? You? Is VMan’s point not sinking in with you at all?

==I will continue to criticize voters who I think make poor decisions.==

Go right ahead. But the key there is “I think.”

==There are many learned political observers that think democracy maybe incapable of making tough long term decisions and something similar to a Chinese model may become the model many emerging nations gravitate towards.==

Seriously? The Chinese model? That’s what we’re going with because the intellectual elite don’t like how voters vote?

If you’re a “hi information voter,” yes you pay a lot more relative attention to the news. You are more likely to know who Mike Madigan is. But that doesn’t always mean you make much better and more-informed choices. You are what you intellectually eat. A lot of “thoughtful” informed citizens are remarkably good at parroting whatever they got from cable talk or their favorite partisan internet source. But that’s about it. In a hifalutin’ liberal arts sense, many of them aren’t particularly thoughtful or reflective or really engaging claims and counter-claims. Some of the high info types are so infected by the partisan RAGE! virus, they’re worse at admitting and incorporating new information that conflicts with their preexisting biases.

Lo-information voters are at least smart enough and humble enough to often admit what they don’t know, and they don’t have the ego investment to try and appear and better-informed than they (in fact) are.

So while I’ll say there’s -something- to this oft-invoked dichotomy, it’s not always clear the hi-info types are really making the superior decisions. Depends on the context, a lot.

If you want to hate someone, I mean rely hate them you have to first dehumanize them. Turn them into a demon and ignore anything that might be good in them. Then you can swing away without fear of going over the top. After all you are simply fighting against the most evil entity in the history of the world.

I read a lot of comments on this board that do little to move the conversation forward and even less to sway the hearts and minds of any readers. They seem more likely intended to help stoke the fires of hatred in the writers themselves. Like a petulant child in the throws of a temper tantrum it is either their way or it’s wrong. No middle ground.

In my years of parenting I’ve found that often the best way to deal with a temper tantrum is a time out. When the emotion subsides there is room for logic to enter the discussion. Just a thought.

Perhaps when we notice that someone makes a comment at odds with some fact we think is of significance to the topic,(e.g that retirement income isn’t actually taxed in Illinois, or that the tax increase goes away automatically on Dec. 31) we simply point out the key missing information rather than put a generalized label on people. That can add, rather than detract from the discussion.

We have to have faith in the wisdom of the voter, even if they’re not always up on every fact. We have done really well at the polls in our history.

Below I offer a the definition of “low information voter” and also the results of study on the topic and then some final comments.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Low information voters, also known as LIVs or misinformation voters, are people who may vote, but who are generally poorly informed about politics. The phrase is mainly used in the United States, and has become popular since the mid-1990s.

A recent study showed that when congressional districts and media markets overlap to create more informed electorates, extremist House members are at much greater risk for defeat. The paper proposes that in the American political system, interest groups, and activists are the key actor, and the electorate is uninformed and bamboozled.

There is nothing racist about any of this or disrespectful of anyone’s opinion. Low information voters can be doctors and scientist who are not properly informed about a candidate or an issue to make a proper or informed decision. It has nothing to do with whether they agree with me or not. They have every right to think and act as they see fit. A high information voter may disagree with me, but would be making that decision out of knowledge, but may very well arrive a different conclusion. To excuse away the existence of the “low information voter” by labeling those of us who use the term…racists or lacking in respect of others views is a straw man. It is nothing but a clever attempt to silence those that disagree with you. I have never said that those that disagree or vote differently then I are “low information voters” but rather have used the term to explain to some extent how Illinois has gotten to the point it has.

The problem with banning such a phrase is that a) it’s used fairly widely in political science and analysis and b) it describes fairly accurately a phenomenon of US politics in which the higher information a voter is, the more partisan they tend to be. For every blowhard who’s addicted to cable news or donates to the preacher or priest that tells them to vote a certain way, there’s also a blowhard, probably more than one, in fact, who pores through news articles, scholarly literature, whatever they remember from intro college classes, and other sources to extract information in a sufficiently selective and out-of-context way to justify extremist positions. By contrast, given that politics is far more than two dimensional, a great many people, including smart people, tune it out, deny themselves essential information and drop out of the process. In the majority of cases, “low information” isn’t a slur, it’s a fact of life.

There really is such a thing as a low information voter. It doesn’t mean someone is poor and lacks formal education. It could be , in many cases, these voters don’t have the time or desire to read one or many news sources. Some of the dumbest voters have gone to college and are white : this doesn’t make them bad people. Throughout history there’s always been a segment of the politician that just isn’t that into politics.

Before 1900, when political parties were fairly ideological : voting participation was much higher. People had a choice not an echo. After progressivism swept both political parties voting participation went down over time. For many voters , there isn’t much of a difference between parties. So, why vote? The odds of your single vote affecting the outcome is extremely low. Many voters learned its’ their civic duty in public school to vote, so they vote . But, many people really do tune off politics. They view politicians as con men making promises that no CEO in the private sector could get away with. Lastly, if you live in an are that is dominated by one political party , the reason for voting is small. If you are in the majority of a one sided district, other people will show up to the polls. If you are in the extreme minority: your vote doesn’t count for much. I realize if you live in a Purple place that makes a difference . But, many Americans live in homogenized places with people think the same way they do about politics. Being a low information voter is highly rational it takes time , even many high information voters can’t name their state representatives.

I agree with anon 1:48. Blago is an excellent example of the point. Another example: How did Marion Barry’s reelection as Mayor of DC reflect the concept of an “informed electorate”? (regardless of whether they agree with me or not.)

Low information voters, also known as LIVs or misinformation voters, are people who may vote, but who are generally poorly informed about politics.

Let me explain to my fellow PolySci nerds why this way of thinking is absolutely wrong and also harmful to the field of political studies.

Every voter has a full life in varying degrees of economic and personal success. When voters vote, they input their personal reflections into the electoral system. Voters don’t need to know anything about politics. Voters don’t need to know anything about government, other than the date of the election and the proper way they are required to register.

Voting is incredibly vital to a democracy because it goes beyond politics. It is literally the moment when every citizen weighs the candidates and votes dependent on their own personal reflections. It is literally the blessed moment when millions of citizens exercise their personal freedom and tells governments who they want to run these governments. It is separate from politics. It is separate from government.

You don’t need to know the news. You don’t need to keep up with the nuances of a campaign. You don’t even need to know who the president is. What you need to know is how you feel about how your life is working out and have an opinion about how our government impacts that.

Voters can be wrong about the facts, but they cannot be wrong about how they feel. Claiming that someone is low information is a vulgar attempt to disenfranchise perfectly fine and normal voters. It is a disgusting twenty year old trend among people who seem to have forgotten why voters vote. The only ignorant people in this scenario are the supposed political professionals angry that they cannot convince voters to follow them into power.

This kind of prejudiced political thinking continues to fail the field of political science. It is willfully blind to the very basics of campaigning which have been proven successful over centuries of democracy.

Tell me, oh brilliant ones, what is the power behind the handshake? The baby kiss? The smile? What is the power behind the candidate meeting and asking a voter for their vote? Tell me, oh brilliant self-anointed geniuses in my field, tell me why such a LOW INFORMATION gesture results in success at the polls?

Voters are human beings, blessed with more than an ability to read the news. Smarter than the campaign staffers who concoct lies and slogans. Richer in experience than a millionaire or a billionaire. When we give human beings the franchise, we go beyond politics and government. When we do this, we enrich our communities with the hopes and dreams of our citizens, it helps those elected lead with effectiveness.

There is no such thing as a low information voter, anymore than there is such a thing as a low information life. When our campaigns start insulting the voters, they corrupt democracy, they corrupt the franchise, and they corrupt our communities.

Claiming a voter is a low information voter ranks right up there with every other form of bigotry in that it attempts to disenfranchise and invalidate the personal reflections and hopes of a citizen. We have to fight any attempt to do that, or we all lose.

= Let me explain to my fellow PolySci nerds why this way of thinking is absolutely wrong and also harmful to the field of political studies.=

It seems like if we don’t agree with you, you find it necessary to call us names and sarcastically call us “oh brilliant ones”.

You have stated the following, “If you want people to agree with you, if you are tired of the partisan bickering and really want government to work for all - you have to respect people.”

I have very respectfully presented my defense of the use of the phrase “low information voter” and done so without the need to name call or discredit others. There are wonderful, smart, creative, helpful, brilliant people who are factually low information voters as the phrase is constructed, defined, and used in the political vernacular. Now you have argued well that it may not matter or that it has its place etc. etc. but it does not change the fact that there is a group of folks that meet the definition of a “low information voter”. I disagree with you that it does not hurt our republic or that there is no such thing. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, but I want to do it respectfully and offer to you that I love your energy and spirit and the fervor that you show in supporting your view.

==Voters can be wrong about the facts, but they cannot be wrong about how they feel.==

I think that is one of the best lines I’ve ever read on this topic. I see political types argue all the time about “facts” and how they simply don’t understand why somebody won’t change their mind. “Their” candidate has all the “facts” and that should be the end of the story. What they completely fail to grasp is what you have identified - emotions. I’ve heard complaints all the time that emotion has no part in anything. If you have that attitude as a politician you are going to lose every time. People need to learn to respect and understand the emotions of voters. To belittle them because they bring emotion to the table is insulting.

I’m not sure how to go about this so forgive my attempt here, but I think you are coming at this in terms of somebody studying a textbook preparing for a test. The problem is there is no test. Voters aren’t “low information” simply because you or anybody else thinks they haven’t gathered enough information. People get the amount of information on candidates that they choose. That doesn’t make your information any better or worse than theirs. It just means they have approached it a different way. Voting isn’t a test that you prepare for so there is no right amount of information to have.

I called myself a PolySci nerd, and then spoke to others who consider themselves a PolySci nerd. If you do not consider yourself one - then I wasn’t speaking to you. Your hurt feeling was based on your misreading, and your acute sensitivity. I apologize if I injured your gentle soul. I hope your day goes better after I thoughtlessly exposed you to such an ugly side of my personality.

In the future, I’ll make every effort to be as clear as possible when I write a post suggesting that a reader could be a PolySci nerd, so that non-nerds aren’t scarred as you have been.

I never mentioned anything about hurt feelings so that is a straw man of your making. I also demonstrated nothing that indicates my gentle soul as been injured, again a straw man you created just so you could be seen knocking it down. I am just pointing out that I disagree with you and have done so in a way that I understood you were urging for. I suggested that when I or others have presented our position on the use of “low information voter” that you disagree with, you seem to have the need to respond in ways that have a personal element to them such that if I don’t agree I am either “brilliant (sarcasm)” “nerdy” “acutely sensitive” etc. Your methods are interesting and I enjoy the back and forth very much. Your spirit and wit are keen and I know you believe deeply in your point, but I simply disagree. I do so without the need to name call or disparage in any way you or others. I thought that was the kind of discourse you were seeking. My pointing this out does not now mean that I am easily hurt, quite the contrary, or that I have not read carefully enough your posts. I once had a man tell me if you just smile at someone you can call them whatever you want. By saying my fellow xxxxx it does change the fact that you seem to have to label others in order to make your point. I do believe in a “low information” voter and yes I think in any debate the first order of business should be to define our terms. I have done so. Now I think we will have to leave that we have a disagreement on this topic, but I have learned much along the way.

= Voters aren’t “low information” simply because you or anybody else thinks they haven’t gathered enough information. People get the amount of information on candidates that they choose. That doesn’t make your information any better or worse than theirs. =

Actually there are people more informed and with better information then others. To deny that is denying reality. It is like saying that no one is faster or smarter or better then anyone else. We are all the same and who is to say who has the better idea. There are differences and to deny them I respectfully present is to miss the point. I am not saying that those “low information voter” are not good people or smart or that they don’t have the right to do as they wish — they do. They also can decide who to vote for in whatever way they wish. I am saying though, that some people have a much higher degree of knowledge about issues and candidates then others and that level of knowledge can in many cases change ones opinion about things. There quite a few studies that seem to support this. People are not low information because I say so, they are low information because they are. If you ask a person about the pension issue, for example, and get their response and then they are given all the facts such as the state did not put in their share, the constitution was voted in by the people in 1970 to protect pensions from a system that was underfunded then etc. etc. the individuals often change their opinion. they were low information and then became better informed.

Accordingly, you must stop doing everything else youu want,
annd leet things please take a more natural pace. How long is the warranty on the work on the roof and
iis it provided to you, the home owner, in writing. In addition to all all these problems, prchased properties
will also cost more ultimately.